Well, it looks like the unions are trying to dissuade any Democrats other than Kathleen Falk from running in a Democratic gubernatorial recall primary, as earlier today Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) has recommended Kathleen Falk for governor once a recall election against Republican Gov. Scott Walker is certified.
In a related story, Dan Bice of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported earlier today that the American Federation of State, County and Muncipal Employees (AFSCME) will be making a gubernatorial endorsement in the coming weeks, with sources reporting Falk is expected to win AFSCME’s endorsement.
I find the timing of these endorsements curious, given there’s still no set date for the recall election against Gov. Walker. It’s still reeeeeeeaaaaaalllllllyyyyy early, especially considering there are only two announced candidates, leaving me to wonder if organized labor is lining up behind Kathleen Falk in order to dissuade any other Democrats from jumping into the race.
I’m finding it really hard to get enthusiastic about the possibility that I’ll be forced to choose either Kathleen Falk or Kathleen Vinehout to be the Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
I never claimed public employees weren’t taxpayers and do not have a voice, however they are only 13% of taxpayers and via the union bribery have acheived a disportionate amount of influence with Democratic lawmakers
Union bribery? I’d love to hear you explain that.
Is that kinda like the Koch brothers pouring money into Scott Walker’s campaign coffers? Would you consider that “Koch bribery?”
Its really not that difficult, bribery is defined as:
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.
The unions are offering their financial backing of Kathleen Falk in return for her promise to pass legislation favorable to their cause, most notably reinstating collective bargaining.
Oh, but I forgot, the recall is not about collective bargaining, wink, wink
Kim as opposed to the influence the Kochs have and last I checked, not sure they own a house here.
I would consider the Koch’s a special interest as well, and firmly beleive that all special interests on both sides should be eliminated
Kim – please read my comment again. Clear numbers show that where there are strong unions wages are higher for everyone. That means my union improves your salary. It’s pretty clear. It is also clear that taxes didn’t go down when Walker took money out of my pocket and business didn’t pick up suddenly because I cut my cable and stopped eating out and shopping less. Your tax dollars go to fund services. Yes, part of those services include the cost of labor but frankly you have no right to tell me what I can and can not do with my money just because I work in the public arena. I earn it and if I want to spend it on politics that really is no affront to you on any reasonable level.
Sorry, Paul there are no “clear” numbers that prove that unions improve wages in the private sector, your thinking it does not make it so.
I am not telling you how you can spend your money, but what about the other members of your union?
Should they have a say in how your union spends their dues? Do you support them having the option to opt out? How about recertification of the unions?
Do you support that, or do the other public sector workers not have a voice?
What explains the numbers of union members opting out once given the chance?
Obviously they don’t see much value in your union, and neither do I.
Kim it is clear that the average salary in a state with strong unions is higher. There is no contesting that at all. As for opting out of union dues, currently people are allowed to opt out of the portion that goes into political activity. The process is fairly simple and open to any member who objects to the endorsement of pro-worker candidates. To opt out of more than that think requires a change in the law. Unions currently have to represent everyone in the workplace and provide them every benefit and service if they pay dues or not once they are a certified bargaining unit. If people get all the services they should pay for them. Otherwise it would be like saying that AAA should have to tow every car on the side of the road to the nearest shop, provide them two gallons of gas and it doesn’t matter if they are paying members or not. It is unfair to the people who pay the price for the service. If you get them to change the law so my union dues don’t pay for services to people who don’t want to pay their share but otherwise restore collective bargaining you will see no objections from me about allowing people to opt out and not pay dues. I also expect you will not see very many state employees who are not members of the union.
@Zuma Bound – apology accepted, and yes I sure do remember! I had decided to keep my distance from Blogging Blue, until the gentle Lisa Mux, one of my favorite bloggers, moved here after being hacked at Waukesha Wonk. (By the Chinese, no less!) We are all learning and growing as we go along. The past year has been a real growth experience for me and I see the same for many, many other #wiunion participants. Peace out, y’all.